As the Amanda Knox case re-enters the news, here is her original handwritten statement to police upon being arrested. The analysis seeks to learn if Amanda Knox was part of the murder of her then roommate. The knowledge comes from Amanda Knox herself, who, if was at the crime scene during the murder, would give us verbal indicators. If she was not, and did not take part in the murder, she would tell us this, as well. Whether or not DNA was handled properly, or whether prosecutors are corrupt or not, her own words will tell us what we need to know.
Analysis Question: Is Amanda Knox guilty, in concert, of causing or participating in the death of her roommate?
"Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks" is a principle followed from antiquity where the words in which we choose are then discerned to be truthful or deceptive. The "heart" is the seat of the intellect and affections (emotions); what we think, and how we feel. Statement Analysis of statements is able to discern truth from deception, including false confessions made under coercion.
Pronouns are of particular value as they are learned in our earliest days of speech, with possessive pronouns often predating speech in young children, as they attempt to say "my" or "mine" with hand motions. Pronouns and articles are exempt from internal subjective dictionaries (as is objective time) and are reflex in our speech with our minds dictating to our tongues what words to say in less than a microsecond.
The Amanda Knox case is one that provokes emotional responses from both those who believe that she is guilty, and those who believe she is innocent. When people lie, they have a reason to lie. Here, she is brought in for a murder investigation.
Transcript of Amanda Knox's handwritten statement to police on the evening of November 6, the day she was arrested.
The statement is in italics, with statement analysis in bold type. Words that are underlined are done so for emphasis.
This is very strange, I know, but really what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else.
The opening line appears deceptive.
Dr. Paul Eckman teaches that testifying to memory failure is almost always deceptive. We don't know what drugs may have impacted her when this statement was made, but failure to remember is most always deceptive, especially in high stress situations. It should be noted that the word "this" indicates closeness, whereas the word "that" shows distance. On average, we see the word "that" used more frequently with memory failure.
note the inclusion of sensitive words, "very" strange, and "really" what happened. She notes that others are confused as she is. In a criminal investigation, innocent people (those who did not "do it" nor were involved in it) say so. They do so quickly, and without sensitivity indicators. Even in the most emotionally upsetting circumstances, a denial is found early and is comprised of:
The statement is in italics, with statement analysis in bold type. Words that are underlined are done so for emphasis.
This is very strange, I know, but really what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else.
The opening line appears deceptive.
Dr. Paul Eckman teaches that testifying to memory failure is almost always deceptive. We don't know what drugs may have impacted her when this statement was made, but failure to remember is most always deceptive, especially in high stress situations. It should be noted that the word "this" indicates closeness, whereas the word "that" shows distance. On average, we see the word "that" used more frequently with memory failure.
note the inclusion of sensitive words, "very" strange, and "really" what happened. She notes that others are confused as she is. In a criminal investigation, innocent people (those who did not "do it" nor were involved in it) say so. They do so quickly, and without sensitivity indicators. Even in the most emotionally upsetting circumstances, a denial is found early and is comprised of:
I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible.
Passive language "I have been told" rather than who told her what specifically. But far more telling is the following words within her statement possibly an embedded admission: "I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened". This is not something an innocent person generally says, even in the form of a question, nor in a reflection of others' words. Someone not at the crime scene would not frame these words, nor place herself there.
Note that she Wants to confirm, which is different than confirming and is a weak assertion.
She wants to confirm something that to her, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible. This means that, to someone else, it would not be impossible; only to "her", and only on the condition of being asked a few days ago. This is a strong indication that Amanda Knox is lying.
Is the something that she wants to confirm something that would be different to someone else (hence the use of "to me"). This is why extra words are essential in analysis. She is not being asked "a few days ago", she is being asked in the present. It appears that her perspective on the "something" she wants to confirm is different now than it was a few days ago.
Also note that "would be impossible" is different than "is impossible." The addition of "would be" changes her claim from something that already happened into a future event; making it weaker.
I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying that I was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder, but let me tell you this. In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused. My account of this story goes as follows, despite the evidence stacked against me:
"I know" is strong and with the first person singular, it is something that she recognizes and asserts. Notice how "I know" is unlike her other statements. It is not "I believe" nor is it qualified with "I know that in my heart" or "I know that in my mind..." or any other additional words. That Raffaele has said that she was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder is something strong to Knox.
Also note that "would be impossible" is different than "is impossible." The addition of "would be" changes her claim from something that already happened into a future event; making it weaker.
I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying that I was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder, but let me tell you this. In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused. My account of this story goes as follows, despite the evidence stacked against me:
"I know" is strong and with the first person singular, it is something that she recognizes and asserts. Notice how "I know" is unlike her other statements. It is not "I believe" nor is it qualified with "I know that in my heart" or "I know that in my mind..." or any other additional words. That Raffaele has said that she was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder is something strong to Knox.
Next notice that it is only "in my mind" that there are things that may be elsewhere; not just in her mind. This is likely deceptive, as it is only in her mind; and not in reality. It is an attempt to avoid the stress of lying.
When people recount events from memory, they generally don't call it a "story", a word which conjures images of a made up tale.
On Thursday November 1 I saw Meredith the last time at my house when she left around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. Raffaele was with me at the time. We, Raffaele and I, stayed at my house for a little while longer and around 5 in the evening we left to watch the movie Amelie at his house. After the movie I received a message from Patrik [sic], for whom I work at the pub "Le Chic". He told me in this message that it wasn't necessary for me to come into work for the evening because there was no one at my work.
Note that when the word "left" is used, it often indicates missing information. 70% of the missing information is due to time constraints, rushing, traffic, etc, with the other 30% being sensitive information.
When people recount events from memory, they generally don't call it a "story", a word which conjures images of a made up tale.
On Thursday November 1 I saw Meredith the last time at my house when she left around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. Raffaele was with me at the time. We, Raffaele and I, stayed at my house for a little while longer and around 5 in the evening we left to watch the movie Amelie at his house. After the movie I received a message from Patrik [sic], for whom I work at the pub "Le Chic". He told me in this message that it wasn't necessary for me to come into work for the evening because there was no one at my work.
Note that when the word "left" is used, it often indicates missing information. 70% of the missing information is due to time constraints, rushing, traffic, etc, with the other 30% being sensitive information.
Note whenever the number 3 enters a statement as it is known as the "liar's number" It should not be considered deceptive on its own, only noted in context. When someone wishes to be deceptive and chooses a number, it is often "3" unless the subject is asked how many drinks he or she had, and then the number is "two". The number 3 enters such as: "I was approached by 3 men" or "At 3 oclock on the third floor..." etc. It is not an indicator of deception on its own, for it is possible to be approached by 3 men on the third floor; only that it should be noted and later factored into the full analysis.
Note that the word "with" shows distance:
"My wife and I went shopping."
"I went shopping with my wife."
These are two ways of saying almost the same thing. A follow up question to B will likely show why distance entered into the statement; such as "I didn't want to go shopping" etc. Here, the distance is between her and Raeffale: "Raeffale was with me" but then immediately changes it to:
"we" which shows closeness, except that she has a need to emphasize the closeness by explanation: "We, Raffele and I stayed..." This need to emphasize, along with the needless repetition is an indicator that she is being deceptive.
Note that Patrik "told" me, rather than he "said" indicates firmness; It may be that she and Patrick argued, or that she wants to emphasize authority. But whatever the need, she uses "because" (which explains why something happened) making the statement itself, along with Patrik, sensitive.
Now I remember to have also replied with the message: "See you later. Have a good evening!" and this for me does not mean that I wanted to meet him immediately. In particular because I said: "Good evening!" What happened after I know does not match up with what Raffaele was saying, but this is what I remember.
Now I remember to have also replied with the message: "See you later. Have a good evening!" and this for me does not mean that I wanted to meet him immediately. In particular because I said: "Good evening!" What happened after I know does not match up with what Raffaele was saying, but this is what I remember.
Note that she "now" remembers which, like the word "but" (which refutes what was previously stated) stands to change her account.
Note that "goodbye", "see you later" etc, in homicide cases can indicate the time of death.
Note the return of "I know" which is strong. What does she know? She knows that it does not match up with Raffaele's testimony. weak commitment to the text. If the subject does not own the text, neither can we.
I told Raffaele that I didn't have to work and that I could remain at home for the evening. After that I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email. Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made love to Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him.
I told Raffaele that I didn't have to work and that I could remain at home for the evening. After that I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email. Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made love to Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him.
Note the pronouns:
"I told Raffaele" is strong language. This may indicate an argument.
Note "after that" is a passage of time, or skipping over. There is missing information at this point of her statement.
Note that "I believe" is weak; but when the weakness is added to: "we relaxed" (which, by itself is strong) is then added "together" (redundancy), we see deception. This needless emphasis is being made to place them together.
Note "perhaps" is a qualifier and she is not committed to the statement.
Note that she "perhaps" made love or perhaps read. This is more than just deceptive: it is an indication of someone else's presence:
Timing is an issue as she has skipped over time and withheld information (temporal lacunae).
Why would she need to say that she made love to Raffaele? She already introduced him with "we". This is an indication of not only deception, but of the presence, within sexual activity, of more than just Amanda Knox and Raffaele. We do not know the time frame since she has skipped time.
Note: Deceptive use of qualifiers. Again, see Dr. Eckman for this form of deception (memory). Note "perhaps" (qualifier) she made love "to" Raffaele. Sex is a theme in this case, and should be explored by investigators. First she says she may have made love TO Raffaele, then changes it to WITH him in the same sentence. The change in language would need to be explored.
However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much. One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele and this might explain how we passed the time.
However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much. One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele and this might explain how we passed the time.
Note anything reported in the negative as sensitive.
Note "I admit" show reluctance and resistance overcome.
Note "with him" instead of "Raffaele and I smoked marijuana"; shows distance
Note that "these" things instead of "those" things.
Note that the entry of water into a statement is often an indicator of sexual assault. Whether it is the washing of clothes, washing of hands, shower, bath, etc,
Here we have the first indicator that her roommate died as part of a sexual homicide.
Note that when she was with Raffaele, she had to mention that she had sex "with him" which is an indication that during sex, at least one other person was present. Now, with the entry of water into the statement is indicative that Amanda Knox was not simply present at the murder of Merideth, but that she was present for a sexual homicide.
Note that to be vague; indicates an attempt at deception. She reports what may have happened, with choices such as reading or sex. This lack of commitment indicates deception on her part.
Note that to be vague; indicates an attempt at deception. She reports what may have happened, with choices such as reading or sex. This lack of commitment indicates deception on her part.
Deception, in order to be deception, must be willful. Amanda Knox places herself at the scene of a crime, and then gives indicators of a sexual homicide.
In truth, I do not remember exactly what day it was, but I do remember that we had a shower and we washed ourselves for a long time. He cleaned my ears, he dried and combed my hair.
In truth, I do not remember exactly what day it was, but I do remember that we had a shower and we washed ourselves for a long time. He cleaned my ears, he dried and combed my hair.
The qualifiers resemble Casey Anthony. "In truth" means she speaks at times
outside of truth.
Note that " I do not remember" is an affirmation of what she does not know. This is a signal of deception. Note that she does remember, but only not "exactly"
Note "we" took a shower. This is the 2nd indicator in a short statement where water is introduced. The element of water is often found in statements where a sexual assault or homicide has taken place.
It is significant that she tells us that Raffaele "cleaned" her. While speaking, even when attempting to be deceptive, what is in the heart slips out and she may have been thinking of washing off blood when she gave this statement. Those that wish to excuse her due to police misconduct, or mishandling of evidence must do so by ignoring not only the fact that she lied, but that she employed the language of a sexual homicide in doing so.
"I dropped off (the hitchhiker), stopped to get gas and wash up. After that, I drove down I-95 until..."
This was a statement where a hitchhiker was murdered. The timeframe where he washed up showed the time of death.
The shower details are also interesting as it is used to pass time and sexuality. Sex is a theme in her statement. Think how you might describe your night; even if you had a romantic shower, would you include it? If you felt that you needed to, would you give details about ears? Sex is in her mind while giving this statement and should alert investigators to any sexual motive in the crime. Making love "to" not "with" her boyfriend may show that Amanda Knox strongly wanted to please him. This may speak to motive and just how far she went.
One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening, although I can't be sure because I didn't look at the clock.
The lack of commitment to the events is noted but we also see:
One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening, although I can't be sure because I didn't look at the clock.
The lack of commitment to the events is noted but we also see:
That which is in the negative: when someone tells us what they did not do, did not say, did not think, particularly when offered in an open sentence, it is a strong indicator of what they did do, did think, and did say. Here, she remembers that she did not look at the clock. This tells us:
She looked at the clock as time was significant.
Note that this is something that "definitely" happened, yet she then says "I think" showing the obvious contradiction. Deception noted.
It is like the statement where the person says "and I saw no one run across my lawn" indicating that she saw someone run across her lawn. Always flag anything offered in the negative.
Also note that "because" is sensitive as it explains why something took place. In a statement, we normally get what happened and not why something happened, and just as being told what didn't happen, the "why, because, therefore, so, since, etc" is highly sensitive to the subject.
After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele's hand, but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish. After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor. But because he didn't have a mop I said we could clean it up tomorrow because we (Meredith, Laura, Filomena and I) have a mop at home. I remember it was quite late because we were both very tired (though I can't say the time).
Note "I noticed" is passive. Passive language seeks to conceal identity or responsibility. Note that the word "but" is used to refute what was just said. What does she refute? Noticing blood? It is the origin of the blood that she seeks to conceal, not the noticing.
Note that "after dinner" chronologically is when she "noticed" blood, but then in her statement she says "after we ate" is repeated, going back to the event. Truthful accounts are in chronological order and can be repeated backwards and forwards. Any time someone is out of chronological order, it should be flagged for deception. Always note when someone says that they "can't" say something; it can indicate that if they did tell the information, it would harm them. Here, she "can't" tell the time; yet has other details down carefully.
Note also any inclusion of thought/emotion within an event. When someone is giving a verbal or written statement, it has been shown through careful study that in the recall process, emotions and thoughts are added later; not in the actual event itself.
A statement has 3 general portions:
an introduction
the event
post event action
It is in the 3rd section that emotions and thoughts are most likely to be included in an honest statement.
note also the "balance" of a statement is where the introduction of an honest statement is about 25% of the statement; the event is 50%, and the post event (like calling 911, etc) is 25%. Any deviation is noted but strong deviation is a solid test for deception. This is covered in other analysis)
Note also any inclusion of thought/emotion within an event. When someone is giving a verbal or written statement, it has been shown through careful study that in the recall process, emotions and thoughts are added later; not in the actual event itself.
A statement has 3 general portions:
an introduction
the event
post event action
It is in the 3rd section that emotions and thoughts are most likely to be included in an honest statement.
note also the "balance" of a statement is where the introduction of an honest statement is about 25% of the statement; the event is 50%, and the post event (like calling 911, etc) is 25%. Any deviation is noted but strong deviation is a solid test for deception. This is covered in other analysis)
Note time: she "can't" tell us indicates that she is restricted by consequence, since we know that she looked at the clock.
The next thing I remember
temporal lacunae. This indicates withheld information during a critical time period; high sensitivity. The police interview would strongly emphasize here
was waking up
note verb tense
the morning of Friday November 2nd around 10am and I took a plastic bag to take back my dirty cloths to go back to my house. It was then that I arrived home alone that I found the door to my house was wide open and this all began. In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion.
note "very doubtful" qualifier; rather than making a full denial of her confession. This is because it is almost impossible to lie upon a lie. She can only doubt the lies she told earlier. Note "this" confession, rather than the expected "that" confession, had it been false.
note the order: stress, shock, and extreme exhaustion. Stress is the first thing noted.
Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly.
The next thing I remember
temporal lacunae. This indicates withheld information during a critical time period; high sensitivity. The police interview would strongly emphasize here
was waking up
note verb tense
the morning of Friday November 2nd around 10am and I took a plastic bag to take back my dirty cloths to go back to my house. It was then that I arrived home alone that I found the door to my house was wide open and this all began. In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion.
note "very doubtful" qualifier; rather than making a full denial of her confession. This is because it is almost impossible to lie upon a lie. She can only doubt the lies she told earlier. Note "this" confession, rather than the expected "that" confession, had it been false.
note the order: stress, shock, and extreme exhaustion. Stress is the first thing noted.
Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly.
This is an example of an extra word, ie, one in which the sentence works without, giving away information. She could have said "I didn't remember a fact" but instead says "I didn't remember a fact correctly" which would show deliberate deception. She cannot tell us what she didn' remember, only what she remembers, so this would place it in the negative, however, it wasn't remembered "correctly", indicating that she did remember it, just not "correctly"; and is another indication of deception.
Here, Knox comes close to a confession, even in her denial. Note what she calls the information: "fact"
I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.
However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.
Here, Knox comes close to a confession, even in her denial. Note what she calls the information: "fact"
I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.
However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.
Note that innocent people never accept nor excuse false work by
Even within fabrication, each word spoken (or written) is vital and should be examined within the forensics of the investigation.
We have already seen the lack of ownership and now she only reports seeing things in her mind. Yet, in spite of lying, there may be many important elements within her account.
But the truth is,
This introduction tells us that she has lied and now wants to be believed
I am unsure about the truth and here's why: Note that "truth" repeated, shows sensitivity and the analyst should be on alert that "truth" is a sensitive topic to the subject.
1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real.
2. My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not true.
Knox is acutely aware of the evidence, the crime scene, and that she has been blamed. Here, she also quotes her boyfriend, though we note the embedded still: "I have said things that I know are not true" appears supported by the analysis.
I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly. I also NEVER asked him to lie for me. This is absolutely a lie. What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this. What does he have to hide? I don't think he killed Meredith, but I do think he is scared, like me. He walked into a situation that he has never had to be in, and perhaps he is trying to find a way out by disassociating himself with me.
Note that she does not say "Raffaele did not kill Meredith" but only that she does not "think" he did; leaving room for someone else to "think" otherwise.
Note that while attempting to describe him as "caring and gentle" she uses the word "with" which shows distance, but then "this", showing closeness, to the things he was saying. Amanda Knox brings herself close to the detail; not further away as expected with innocent people.
Note that "but" refutes what came before it. What came before it? "I don't think Raffaele killed Meredith"
She recognizes that he had a part in the killing.
Several indicators here, including qualifiers, adverbs,and the inclusion of "never" which here is offered (negation) which suggests that she did ask someone to lie for her. Note that she says "he walked into a situation" with "walk" a word indicating tension.
Note that she says Raffaele is in need of a "way out" of the situation.
Honestly,
Repeated use of similar statements is from habitual liar (childhood) who wants to be believed
I understand because this is a very scary situation. I also know that the police don't believe things of me that I know I can explain, such as:
1. I know the police are confused as to why it took me so long to call someone after I found the door to my house open and blood in the bathroom.
This tells us what Knox has been attempting to do: confuse the police. The police are not "confused"; they recognize the incongruity of Knox' statements. This is the "muddy the waters" technique employed by the guilty (Jose Baez comes to mind)
The truth is,
noted that she has a need to announce truth, which brings the rest of her statement into question. This is something deceptive people do when they want to be believed.
I wasn't sure what to think, but I definitely didn't think the worst, that someone was murdered.
Note twice she goes to the negative: not sure what to think and what she did not think, yet, she adds in the weakened "definitely" to what she didn't think.
Note that the word, "someone" is gender free. This is an attempt to, perhaps, even lie to herself about the murder. She knows the gender of the victim.
I thought a lot of things, mainly that perhaps someone got hurt and left quickly to take care of it. I also thought that maybe one of my roommates was having menstral [sic] problems and hadn't cleaned up. Perhaps I was in shock, but at the time I didn't know what to think and that's the truth. That is why I talked to Raffaele about it in the morning, because I was worried and wanted advice.
Note that frequently in murders, guilty perpetrators will minimize what happened. Meredith did not get "hurt", she was murdered.
Note "left quickly to take care of it" can be viewed with the "taking care" of the cleaning of the person and the apartment.
Note the use of the word "perhaps" as not only used when a subject is deceptive and does not want to be pinned down in a statement, but here it is used repeatedly, showing sensitivity.
Note that "because" is noted for sensitivity as it is outside the boundary of the general statement of "what happened" and shows a need to explain.
Liars have a difficult and stressful task of recalling what stories they have told and by adding "perhaps" and "maybe", they are able to later defend their inconsistency.
First, she lists posible excuses for not calling police, excuses that didnt cause her to be alarmed. Then she goes on to say that "perhaps" she was in "shock", which means that she would have had knowledge of a traumatic event. In the next sentence, the "shock" turned to "worry" which caused her to seek advice.
2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating.
This is similar to an admission.
And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house. Note again that "but" refutes what came first. She wants to "stand" behind the statements but...this is where it is difficult to lie about a lie.
3. I'm very confused at this time.
Note that she is "very" confused, but only "at this time"
My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can. Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.
[illegible section]
I'm trying, I really am, because I'm scared for myself. I know I didn't kill Meredith. That's all I know for sure. In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night. The questions that need answering, at least for how I'm thinking are:
1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or for you) Did Raffaele lie?
2. Why did I think of Patrik?
3. Is the evidence proving my pressance [sic] at the time and place of the crime reliable? If so, what does this say about my memory? Is it reliable?
4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?
3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.
I have a clearer mind that I've had before, but I'm still missing parts, which I know is bad for me. But this is the truth and this is what I'm thinking at this time. Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn't help anyone. I understand how serious this situation is, and as such, I want to give you this information as soon and as clearly as possible.
If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are. Please believe me at least in that, although I understand if you don't. All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.
Amanda Knox owns her involvement in Meredith's death with a word: MY. Someone who was not involved in Meredith's death would not state "my involvement", because they would not own it.
The same theme continues. I have highlighted the key words as the explanation is the same. Knox can't tell the truth, as it would cause her consequences; therefore, she seeks to confuse and leave open all sorts of possible explanations. She does not report what happens, but attempts to persuade. This is likely how she got herself out of trouble growing up, and is used to getting her way. The wording suggests her form of lying is lifelong, and not specific to this event.
Amanda Knox would not pass a polygraph. She fails the polygraphy of Statement Analysis and places herself at the scene of the murder and is deceptive throughout her account. She, by her own words, tells us that this is a sexual homicide, not just a homicide, and that she took part in it; present for the activity. She places herself by the crime scene and even though she attempts to deceive, her words give her away. She has nothing to be afraid of but lies, which would appear that she feared her lies were not bought by police.
It is likely that she, Amanda Knox, did not inflict the final death blow, and that she is not sure who's blow or cut was the final one that caused Meredith's death. This is why she said she did not "think" that Raffaele killed her, "but". This was likely a sexual assault that several took place in where they would each blame the other.
She attempts to build an alibi for herself, indicating the need for alibi, and she attempts to explain away the washing away of evidence on her part.
Amanda Knox was part of a sexual homicide. This comes from her own words, and is not changed if prosecutors are corrupt or honorable, nor if evidence was dropped or mishandled. Amanda Knox, herself, has told us that she was part of a sexual homicide, was present, and that she knows hard evidence thus proves it.
If her initial confession is thrown out, this statement itself shows her involvement. It is difficult to imagine anyone trained in interviewing and interrogation claiming that this statement is truthful. Mishandling evidence or dropping something, or not wearing gloves may cause difficulties, but it does not mean that Amanda Knox didn't take part in the murder. Her own words show that she did.
Even within fabrication, each word spoken (or written) is vital and should be examined within the forensics of the investigation.
We have already seen the lack of ownership and now she only reports seeing things in her mind. Yet, in spite of lying, there may be many important elements within her account.
But the truth is,
This introduction tells us that she has lied and now wants to be believed
I am unsure about the truth and here's why: Note that "truth" repeated, shows sensitivity and the analyst should be on alert that "truth" is a sensitive topic to the subject.
1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real.
2. My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not true.
Knox is acutely aware of the evidence, the crime scene, and that she has been blamed. Here, she also quotes her boyfriend, though we note the embedded still: "I have said things that I know are not true" appears supported by the analysis.
I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly. I also NEVER asked him to lie for me. This is absolutely a lie. What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this. What does he have to hide? I don't think he killed Meredith, but I do think he is scared, like me. He walked into a situation that he has never had to be in, and perhaps he is trying to find a way out by disassociating himself with me.
Note that she does not say "Raffaele did not kill Meredith" but only that she does not "think" he did; leaving room for someone else to "think" otherwise.
Note that while attempting to describe him as "caring and gentle" she uses the word "with" which shows distance, but then "this", showing closeness, to the things he was saying. Amanda Knox brings herself close to the detail; not further away as expected with innocent people.
Note that "but" refutes what came before it. What came before it? "I don't think Raffaele killed Meredith"
She recognizes that he had a part in the killing.
Several indicators here, including qualifiers, adverbs,and the inclusion of "never" which here is offered (negation) which suggests that she did ask someone to lie for her. Note that she says "he walked into a situation" with "walk" a word indicating tension.
Note that she says Raffaele is in need of a "way out" of the situation.
Honestly,
Repeated use of similar statements is from habitual liar (childhood) who wants to be believed
I understand because this is a very scary situation. I also know that the police don't believe things of me that I know I can explain, such as:
1. I know the police are confused as to why it took me so long to call someone after I found the door to my house open and blood in the bathroom.
This tells us what Knox has been attempting to do: confuse the police. The police are not "confused"; they recognize the incongruity of Knox' statements. This is the "muddy the waters" technique employed by the guilty (Jose Baez comes to mind)
The truth is,
noted that she has a need to announce truth, which brings the rest of her statement into question. This is something deceptive people do when they want to be believed.
I wasn't sure what to think, but I definitely didn't think the worst, that someone was murdered.
Note twice she goes to the negative: not sure what to think and what she did not think, yet, she adds in the weakened "definitely" to what she didn't think.
Note that the word, "someone" is gender free. This is an attempt to, perhaps, even lie to herself about the murder. She knows the gender of the victim.
I thought a lot of things, mainly that perhaps someone got hurt and left quickly to take care of it. I also thought that maybe one of my roommates was having menstral [sic] problems and hadn't cleaned up. Perhaps I was in shock, but at the time I didn't know what to think and that's the truth. That is why I talked to Raffaele about it in the morning, because I was worried and wanted advice.
Note that frequently in murders, guilty perpetrators will minimize what happened. Meredith did not get "hurt", she was murdered.
Note "left quickly to take care of it" can be viewed with the "taking care" of the cleaning of the person and the apartment.
Note the use of the word "perhaps" as not only used when a subject is deceptive and does not want to be pinned down in a statement, but here it is used repeatedly, showing sensitivity.
Note that "because" is noted for sensitivity as it is outside the boundary of the general statement of "what happened" and shows a need to explain.
Liars have a difficult and stressful task of recalling what stories they have told and by adding "perhaps" and "maybe", they are able to later defend their inconsistency.
First, she lists posible excuses for not calling police, excuses that didnt cause her to be alarmed. Then she goes on to say that "perhaps" she was in "shock", which means that she would have had knowledge of a traumatic event. In the next sentence, the "shock" turned to "worry" which caused her to seek advice.
2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating.
This is similar to an admission.
And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house. Note again that "but" refutes what came first. She wants to "stand" behind the statements but...this is where it is difficult to lie about a lie.
3. I'm very confused at this time.
Note that she is "very" confused, but only "at this time"
My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can. Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.
[illegible section]
I'm trying, I really am, because I'm scared for myself. I know I didn't kill Meredith. That's all I know for sure. In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night. The questions that need answering, at least for how I'm thinking are:
1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or for you) Did Raffaele lie?
2. Why did I think of Patrik?
3. Is the evidence proving my pressance [sic] at the time and place of the crime reliable? If so, what does this say about my memory? Is it reliable?
4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?
3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.
I have a clearer mind that I've had before, but I'm still missing parts, which I know is bad for me. But this is the truth and this is what I'm thinking at this time. Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn't help anyone. I understand how serious this situation is, and as such, I want to give you this information as soon and as clearly as possible.
If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are. Please believe me at least in that, although I understand if you don't. All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.
Amanda Knox owns her involvement in Meredith's death with a word: MY. Someone who was not involved in Meredith's death would not state "my involvement", because they would not own it.
The same theme continues. I have highlighted the key words as the explanation is the same. Knox can't tell the truth, as it would cause her consequences; therefore, she seeks to confuse and leave open all sorts of possible explanations. She does not report what happens, but attempts to persuade. This is likely how she got herself out of trouble growing up, and is used to getting her way. The wording suggests her form of lying is lifelong, and not specific to this event.
Amanda Knox would not pass a polygraph. She fails the polygraphy of Statement Analysis and places herself at the scene of the murder and is deceptive throughout her account. She, by her own words, tells us that this is a sexual homicide, not just a homicide, and that she took part in it; present for the activity. She places herself by the crime scene and even though she attempts to deceive, her words give her away. She has nothing to be afraid of but lies, which would appear that she feared her lies were not bought by police.
It is likely that she, Amanda Knox, did not inflict the final death blow, and that she is not sure who's blow or cut was the final one that caused Meredith's death. This is why she said she did not "think" that Raffaele killed her, "but". This was likely a sexual assault that several took place in where they would each blame the other.
She attempts to build an alibi for herself, indicating the need for alibi, and she attempts to explain away the washing away of evidence on her part.
Amanda Knox was part of a sexual homicide. This comes from her own words, and is not changed if prosecutors are corrupt or honorable, nor if evidence was dropped or mishandled. Amanda Knox, herself, has told us that she was part of a sexual homicide, was present, and that she knows hard evidence thus proves it.
If her initial confession is thrown out, this statement itself shows her involvement. It is difficult to imagine anyone trained in interviewing and interrogation claiming that this statement is truthful. Mishandling evidence or dropping something, or not wearing gloves may cause difficulties, but it does not mean that Amanda Knox didn't take part in the murder. Her own words show that she did.
47 comments:
Peter i would suggest you send this statement anlysis to the prosecutors in Italy, they may decide it is not relevant or cannot be used but it would show them where the deception lies in her her statementand may assist with the case.
thanks
Hobs
If you look at the confession of Jeremy Strohmeyer, you'll see similar language. Strohmeyer was convicted of raping and killing a 7 year old in a Nevada casino bathroom in the late 90s. In that case, there was a witness who chose not to intervene and not to tell anyone about the crime. He was not charged with anything because there were no laws on the books against being a bad Samaritan. Strohmeyer does take some responsibility but casts blame at many other things and people as contributory. Here's the link to excerpts of his confession:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1998/Oct-15-Thu-1998/news/8409396.html
Was this statement written in Italian, followed by translation, or written in English?
Peter,
That was very interesting, thank you.
Off topic:
Could you explain about perfect and imperfect verb tenses. I've seen some mistakes among the commenters about those. People seem to confuse imperfect for present if they are contrasting it to perfect past, or similar sorts of mistakes.
I told her.
I was telling her.
or the future version
I will tell her.
I will be telling her.
present tense
I tell her.
I am telling her. (used to indicate future intension sometimes, but also for ongoing present actions with no specific start or stop indicated)
Imperfect tenses are more ambiguous and deceptive in some contexts because they do not specify completeness.
I think the measly 12 credits of linguistics I had have warped me.
Thanks,
KG
Amazing. Why is this not in the hands of prosecutors?!! Peter do you and heather do this for any cases? You could really help the prosecution and meredith's parents would be so grateful for any help. Please! I know if amanda gets released she will be a celebrity almost with numerous book and movie deals..she will act like she's some noble suffering person incarcerated unjustly like she's nelson mandela. Do not let this happen. She is smiling and making faces in court. Gross reports of her strumming her guitar, becoming fluent in itlaian and making friends with inmates and wearing that "all you need is love" t shirt in a court session (she sings beatles songs in her free time) just vile.
Peter and Heather - you are amazing. I agree with Hobs, you should send this analysis to prosecutors!
OT: John Skelton secured a plea deal and pled no contest to lesser charges than kidnapping AND it is reported he google searched "neck breaking"...how familar does that sound? uggh, max sentence could be 15 years...
http://www.detnews.com/article/20110728/METRO/107280463/Investigators--Father-of-missing-Morenci-boys-looked-up-how-to-break-a-neck
One thing that stood out for me in the statement is that she mentions "ears" twice.
The first instance she is having her ears washed. The second, she is covering her ears to block out Meridith's screams.
Could washing the ears be important because she was trying to 'wash away' the memory of the screams?
Was this statement made in English? Or in Italian, and translated into English? Some of the sentence structure indicates the second, and in that case, how reliable is analysis?
dadgum - this was a hand written statement by Knox. See below.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/6728473/Meredith-Kercher-trial-Amanda-Knox-in-pictures.html?image=18
Penelope,
I missed that. Excellent catch and a fascinating opinion.
It is sickening to know that this twisted woman participated in the killing yet like Casey Anthony, she may also walk.
Hobs, if you know where it could be sent, let me know. In fact, there is more work to be done on it, but given time constraints and how much reading would still hold interest, I let it go as is.
thanks,
Peter
Peter
Thanks Tish..
I am struck by the frequency of stilted sentence structure in both written and recorded statements.
I know how my DIL translates (she is Italian), and that in the beginning Knox had attempted to speak in Italian, which has improved as time has passed.
One of the things that strikes me, although it may not have anything to do with statement analysis; is, why did she need her ears cleaned?
No one cleans their ears every time they get in the shower, do they? But she stood patiently while her b/f made a point in cleaning her ears? Why? Blood.
Dott. Giuliano Mignini
Il Pubblico Ministero di Perugia
La Procura della Repubblica
Via Fiorenzo di Lorenzo nr. 22/24
06121 Perugia (PG) Italy
Phone 075/5405014 075/5405014
Fax Fax
075/5723953 075/5723953
procura.perugia @ giustizia.it
this is all i can find for now , i hope it is of some use
Thanks, Hob. Meredith's father has been sent a copy, too.
The True Justice site put it up. They are dedicated to fighting the Scamthony like media game playing by the family and others.
It is sickening to think about perverted justice as we saw in the Casey Anthony case.
The comments that are deleted often say, in pleasanter terms:
'Statement Analysis is garbage because Amanda is innocent!' as if this is the reference point of all truth. Yet, the same analysis procedure applied to Casey Anthony is applauded.
The emotional attachment to cases is strange. The former FBI's article was rippled with deception and falsehood.
Even those who claim she was beaten or coerced into a false confession would have to know, if they received any training in interviewing/interrogation, that coerced false confessions show that very thing by nature of the language used.
Let's hope justice prevails.
I cannot imagine the pain that Meredith's family must go through to see such insistence backing a liar.
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/scientific_statement_analysis_2_knoxs_handwritten_note/
Peter
Anne,
although Penelope's view on the ears is outside the strict realm of analysis, I think it is accurate.
We can say: "ears" is sensitive because it is repeated. This is firm. But why? Why is cleaning the ears such an issue?
The more I thought about Penelope's viewpoint, the more I felt she was correct.
Perhaps it was those horrific screams...
Amanda Knox had a role in this killing. Perhaps the drugs and alcohol and her desire to please Raffaele loosened her quite a bit, and perhaps it did not begin as a homicide (I believe that it did not) but as the sickos went to work, it spiraled out of control.
I fear that Meredith opened her mouth and told them she was going to report them to the police and one of them made the decision to kill her.
I don't think it was Amanda who inflicted the final blow.
This is the trouble with lying. Once she committed herself to lie, she was in trouble. She would have gotten, perhaps, a lesser sentence had she told the truth as to what her role was.
Did she try to stop it? Did she say "we've gone too far?" or, did she beg Meredith not to tell the police?
Her language tells us that, at least in her belief, she did not inflict the final death blow. It is also possible that she was part of so much of the assault that she could not tell the truth.
Penelope, you should weigh in on more issues, your thinking is sharp.
Peter
Peter, Thank You !
Your Statement Analysis of Amanda Knox should be on the FRONT PAGE OF EVERY AMERICAN NEWSPAPER ... and the papers in Europe as well !
I am so tired of the "Friends of Amanda" and "Momma Edda" with their "PR Campaign" to "free" Amanda ... keep her locked up where she belongs !
Great Analysis ... Peter, another one of your analyses that you should "re-post" is your analyses of Amanda's e-mail !
Have a nice day ...
snipped from above statement from Knox:
"One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening, although I can't be sure because I didn't look at the clock."
Peter,
If I remember correctly, the coroner placed the time of death of Meredith around 11:00 p.m.
Hmmm ... Knox is claiming that she "thinks" she was eating at that time -- 11:00 pm -- but is "not sure" if she looked at the clock...
I believe that Amanda is trying to set-up an "alibi" -- she KNOWS what time the "murder" was and all things that led up to the murder ...
Thanks for your response Peter! I agree, Penelope made an astute observation. Yes, I do think those ears play an important role in the analysis.
Still, I wonder what was so important about the b/f cleaning her ears that she would even mention it? That takes a little detailing, doesn't it? What b/f does that?
I see several other good observations here too.... all interesting. AlSO agree, you should send your analysis on to the property authorities; it's VERY good. TKX again! Anne
All good points. Analyzing the statements is fascinating. I learn so much from reading all the comments. The alleged lapse of memory due to the drug fueled haze is mind numbing. I have noticed the reporting of use of marijuana by both Casey Anthony and Amanda Knox prior to the respective crimes that they were involved in. I was never a pot user but the pot today is nothing like the pot of the 70's. Much stronger and more damaging.
Poor Meredith, nice girl in the wrong place with these souless people. May she rest in peace.
I meant to say PROPER authorities.... Sorry.
This analysis was such an excellent read, Peter. I really took my time with it because there was so much to absorb.
Thank you!
Great idea Hobs, to send to the prosecution.
Anne said:
...
Still, I wonder what was so important about the b/f cleaning her ears that she would even mention it? That takes a little detailing, doesn't it? What b/f does that? ...
When I was reading that part of the analysis I was envisioning Raffaele finding blood in her ear and cleaning it out for her.
What also struck me odd was that he did everything for her afterwards as opposed to being intimate in the shower? Shampooing and sudsing each other I could see. But she said "we clean ourselves for a long while" meaning that they didn't suds each other just themselves. But then he cleaned her ears, and dried and combed her hair. So the shower was purposeful and impersonal and then afterwards he pampered her? To me it seemed like she was checked over before she got out of the shower and Raffaele saw that she missed something in an area that she doesn't normally wash while in the shower (but maybe cleans/dry afterwards with a Q-Tip?)
People usually take care of someone's toiletry because they can't do it for themselves. Maybe she was in shock?
I spent a lot of time reading that part of Knox's statement because it's weird to me. I'm probably way off.
WHY ARE YOU NOT DISCUSSING THEY HAVE THE REAL KILLER RUDY???? Amanda and Rafael were implicated before they knew the real killer was RUDY!!! The prosecutor has the DNA on RUDY not Amanda and Rafael. Please read about motive....Rafael was the thief who broke in the apt.
i agree with you 2. but peter will never admit that he was wrong. he is trying to establish a career in the the media & thinks statement analysis is the unknown key that will get him noticed. he defends statment analysis even when it is wrong & brainwashes his readers into thinking so 2.
hang in there amanda, we are praying for you & god our almity father will take care of u. amen.
Fascinating post. It clarifies and articulates a lot of what has bothered me about her statement from the first time I read it. I don't usually pay much attention to criminal cases but this one bothers me terribly. It has to do with my sense that this spoiled girl has made lying a habit and is so used to getting away with it that she continues in the face of it all.
I am also intrigued by the virulent support and the horrendous misreporting in the American media.
The facts are very very clear. But conspiracy theory aspect and the layer upon layer of lies and misrepresentation are starting to become alarming.
Why can't Knox supports admit and accept the fact that Amanda Knox is a liar and has been lying from the beginning.
You don't even need statement analysis to see that. Statement analysis has been great at showing the "hot spots" in statements Amanda has made.
I personally don't think she murdered Meredith Kercher, but I do think she has some strange involvement with Meredith's murder.
Chris wrote: "One problem with your analysis is that you have so far failed to examine what Italian law enforcement (ILE) said"
One problem with my analysis of Amanda's statement is that I did not analyze another person's statement??
You don't understand what you criticize.
Peter
you're wasting your time. They already said they don't believe in Statement Analysis but they flood your blog with comments. It is ridiculous.
Anonymous,
I have begun to read up on the case including the DNA mess. It is difficult to sift through the postings because I have found that many pro amanda posters will post anything and everything, verified or not, just to make a point.
A good number say "I don't believe in Statement Analysis" which does beg the question, "why are they here?" but I suspect they surf the web and think they are doing justice by posting pro Amanda material everywhere. As I said months ago, assertions without proof will be deleted.
Amanda Knox lied in her statements. She also placed herself at the scene of the crime, and used language indicative of sexual homicide. This doesn't change no matter how corrupt prosecutors, judges and police may be or how good or poor her attorneys are.
I have deleted comments of ignorance and those threatening me or my family. I have deleted the insulting ones as well.
I suggest to those who do not believe in Statement analysis to start their own pro Amanda Knox Anti Statement Analysis blog, post their reasons for their beliefs and deal with the comments.
I will continue to post analysis on statements. The same analysis applied to the words of Casey Anthony will be applied to Amanda Knox and to the next killer.
I post not only that I conclude she is lying but why. I would like to read someone post that she is truthful and why they find her truthful...
The last post about my analysis of one person being wrong because I didn't analyze someone else's is not the first time an Amanda supporter made the same argument.
It is like saying Casey Anthony 's analysis showing she was lying is incorrect because I did not analyze what Det. Melich said.
It is void of logic.
I am with Hobnob and others...we already have one creepy killer walking free, hamming it up for the camera. We're all full here; let her stay in Italy.
Peter
woud half of these weirdos be posting if she wasn't pretty? I have been reading hear for months and I am not sure how I feel about some of the analysis but I have noticed two things:
Most of your posters are women
Most of your posters on the Amanda Knox case are men.
what do you make of this?
I think:
Casey Anthony touched a nerve with mothers.
Amanda Knox is pretty and her sexy mannerisms caught the attention of men.
what do you think of my view?
Also do you think that if Amanda Knox weren't so pretty would she have this wild following of men?
S.
The principles we follow do not include having to analyze another person, even if that person is asking the questions.
The subject is dead; the statement is alive.
The principles followed here are not changed for Amanda Knox. Statement Analysis has its own principles, just as other analysis of the case his its own.
Examining evidence, for instance, is not something I do here at the blog. I am only analyzing statements; nothing more. I may have opinions but when I state them, I make sure it is understood that this is commentary.
I don't trust media to present things fairly. They appear to be divided into two camps.
I don't believe Amanda Knox made the final, killing blow of Meredith. I do believe, however, that she was present and was part of the sexual assault.
Everything I have read, pro and con, has not moved me from this opinion. If the prosecutors are liars, it will not change anything about her statement. Statements under coercion are also analyzed, just as are false confessions.
Chris, I suggest you stay with sites where they feel amanda knox is innocent.
Scott, I went to the link provided and I don't know which statements you would like analyzed. It takes hours to do thorough analysis, so you would need to be specific. I appreciate your open-mindedness on the topic. Find what part of the interview you want analyzed. I can't analyze the entire report, however.
Susan: Your observations are correct: Most posters are female and the overwhelming number of posters on Knox are male (including the many that deleted due to foul language, threats, insults, or assertions without proof). I don't know about the conclusion of why this is, but have some guesses. Casey Anthony triggered mothers and grandmothers, terribly. Knox seems to cause incredibly emotional responses in males.
I try to stay emotionally distant and let the words speak for themselves. "The subject is dead; the statement is alive" is a constant reminder (even regarding body language analysis).
No one likes to see injustice and some posters are genuine in their belief that this is a miscarriage of justice. I know they have a hard time with analysis because they find the analysis of Casey Anthony, Misty Croslin, and others to be sound, and make sense, but then when it is applied to Knox, it creates a pressure that isn't rectified. The response usually is that they admit she lied, but hope (perhaps) that she lied for a reason other than being involved. I understand that hope. I'll let others decide for themselves why she lied.
Years ago, it was tough for me to read the SCAN reports of the Ramsey case. It went against what I believed, and hoped. Since that time, I have seen analysis be correct, over and over and over again. But...and this is a big but...
it is the same analysis that works perfectly on the language of Casey Anthony that is applied to the Ramseys.
Since that time, I have accepted what horrified me when my daughter was 6 years old, on the night after Christmas:
That John and/or Patsy Ramsey were involved in the death of Jonbenet, who was likely sexually molested.
Peter
Scott, I went to the link provided and I don't know which statements you would like analyzed. It takes hours to do thorough analysis, so you would need to be specific. I appreciate your open-mindedness on the topic. Find what part of the interview you want analyzed. I can't analyze the entire report, however.
________________________________________
I am not Scott, and I would like state that I am a woman. Please post analysis on PM Mignini’s interviews with CNN . I am interested in seeing both sides of the case, and I feel I can remain non-judgmental, and not fault anyone. Peter, would it really take up that much of your time? Doesn't the SA software assist you in your anaylsis? I notice that you crank out numerous stories a day, some are even tabloid coverage of media events. Please, reconsider and treat us by covering a story that is of high interest in the media. Thank you.
Peter, this person just called you a liar! Ha! The Amanda supporters won't stop even to be polite!
I guess he lied to us when he said it would take up time. Nice insult. Woman? I don't need training to know he is lying!
Oh, by the way, Peter, i have a book I'd like you to analyze in your free time. thanks!
sign me,
Robert/Roberta
Never mind, I don't know why I even bothered. Anyone who must rely on his own readers to supply him with the written transcripts is definitely not a professional.
I have followed this blog for a while now, I realize that this is the Hyatt's part time job. I have also noticed that 80% of the posts here are originated because a reader suggested it. Thus, I feel that Peter's Analysis Service's are not necessarily in demand from the professional media or LE. I am embarrased for myself that I bothered to ask him.
For the record, Robert/Roberta, I am a woman and do not necessarily need to prove my sex to anyone. Believe what you want, why would I care. MOO, take it or leave it. It doesn't really matter.
Peter, I hope you have an easier time keeping the various commenters straight, because following the comments here at times is brutally challenging.
Susan, I think there was a misunderstanding somewhere in this thread with regard to your comments. A commenter by the name of Scott left a link to a different statement by someone he wanted to see analyzed, and Peter seemed to be responding to that commenter.
Separately, I wouldn't expect a professional to spend their free time tracking down transcripts others want them to analyze on their own time to spend hours of their time analyzing them for free on the internet-- and thorough analysis can certainly take hours even for relatively brief statements (that if spoken in real time would be over within just several minutes). It makes sense to me to choose those cases or statements that his readers are most interested in to feature on the blog, because if you're not posting anything your readers are interested in then you'll very quickly not have those readers.
I doubt Peter runs this blog to earn a living, I'm sure it is a part-time thing for him. There are only a small handful of professionals out there who are willing to teach their craft for free in their spare time the way the Hyatts do here. I'm grateful for the peek behind the curtains and the time they spend teaching interested people the ins and outs of an otherwise obscure profession. I don't take that kind of thing for granted-- it's rare.
Most of the numerous news items posted here don't actually contain thorough analysis, they contain examples for readers to practice on for themselves, and/or cursory analysis if any-- used to highlight particular points and emphasize the application of specific techniques in statement analysis. There are sometimes posts with thorough analysis but they're not the majority when I've visited the blog here.
All that said, I would imagine that Peter would probably be happy to analyze whatever statements anyone wanted him to if they were willing to pay for the service. That is what professionals do after all-- trade the use of their unique talents and skills with a party who needs but lacks those talents and skills in exchange for that person's money.
I'm not trying to come across as a smart alek here, it's just that some seemingly obvious points appear to be getting missed by some folks and that's causing a lot of unnecessary friction between various readers. From what I've read here, it doesn't need to be that way because it seems to me that most of the disagreement comes from simple misunderstandings and not fundamental disagreement.
Peter,
You wrote, “One problem with my analysis of Amanda's statement is that I did not analyze another person's statement?? You don't understand what you criticize.” No, that is not what I wrote, nor is it what I meant. What I meant was that any approach that only looks at that which the defendant says will never uncover the deception of police or prosecution. You don’t think that their potential deception is relevant. Let me show how it is. Here is a statement from Mignini that I hope you will analyze from the link I previously gave.
12’51’’ CNN: Why wasn’t there any video or transcript of those hours?
13’00’’ Mignini: Look, that’s, I was at the police station, and all the…let’s say…when I made investigations in my own office, I taped them. I taped them, we have an apparatus for that, and I transcribed them. For example, there’s the interrogation of the English girls, Meredith’s friends, it was all taped. The interrogations of Amanda in prison were taped, and then transcribed, and we have the transcripts of… But in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn’t done, not with respect to Amanda or anyone else. Also because, I can tell you, today, even then, but today in particular, we have budget problems, budget problems that are not insignificant, which do not allow us to transcribe.
Chris,
You don't understand how Statement Analysis itself works, nor its principles. You need to spend time learning it first before you make assertions.
It is not necessary to analyze another's statement to understand a subject's. The analysis of both may help understand more of a case, but it would not change the analysis done. This is why we repeat "the subject is dead; the statement is alive"
This is not analysis of DNA, nor of police or prosecutorial conduct. It is not an overall evaluation of the case.
It is simply taking the statement of an accused and analyzing it.
Should another's statement be analyzed and found to be deceptive, including the one who conducted the interrogation, it would not cause Amanda Knox' analysis to change and say "she is truthful."
She lied.
She lied in a murder investigation.
Even if everyone around her, including the prosecutor, judge, lawyer and police lied, I know that Amanda Knox lied, placed herself at the scene of the crime, and used language found in sexual homicide cases.
When she said "I didn't look at the clock" the same principle is applied to her that is applied to every other case.
If you'd like someone else's statement analyzed, copy and paste it, in full here in the comments section. There are many eyes that will view it besides mine.
If the transcripts of her original interrogation are released, I will analyze them.
Here is your exact quote:
"What I meant was that any approach that only looks at that which the defendant says will never uncover the deception of police or prosecution. You don’t think that their potential deception is relevant"
a. We can look at an answer without seeing what police or the interviewer said. You are incorrect about Statement Analysis, itself.
b. "You don't think that their potential deception is relevant" You are wrong again. I think police deception is relevant to the case; but not to the analysis of the statement itself.
You will have a better argument if you just spend some time learning what Statement Analysis is; its principles, and how it operates, before you post assertions. Start with the ones entitled "101" or go to SCAN.com, or statementanalysis.com . Take some time learning the principles; they are simple. Then practice on a few known liars. You will learn "the subject is dead; the statement is alive" and from the words the subject chooses gives us insight into the subject's thinking.
If you take the time to do this, including the application, I will then be glad to engage your further. I understand your passion in this case.
Peter
12’51’’ CNN: Why wasn’t there any video or transcript of those hours?
13’00’’ Mignini: Look, that’s, I was at the police station, and all the…let’s say…when I made investigations in my own office, I taped them. I taped them, we have an apparatus for that, and I transcribed them. For example, there’s the interrogation of the English girls, Meredith’s friends, it was all taped. The interrogations of Amanda in prison were taped, and then transcribed, and we have the transcripts of… But in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn’t done, not with respect to Amanda or anyone else. Also because, I can tell you, today, even then, but today in particular, we have budget problems, budget problems that are not insignificant, which do not allow us to transcribe.
I think most readers here will highlight the sensitivity indicators in the response. Note in particular the pronoun change from "I" to "we"
Note the broken sentences indicate withheld information
Note the sensitivity of repetition.
PH
"I've always thought if you could say why there's a reason Ronny Anderson is in jail, it might be because the fact that he didn't have no place for somebody to stay that helped him that night...landed him where's he's at...That might be the reason. That might be the only, total reason why he's where he's at today."
PH-Do you detect any deception from this statement or do you need more to analyze?
"Everything I have read, pro and con, has not moved me from this opinion. If the prosecutors are liars, it will not change anything about her statement. Statements under coercion are also analyzed, just as are false confessions." -Seamus O Riley
Could you analyze a false confession and compare it to AK's statement to show the discrepancies? I have perused this site for awhile and have never seen such an analysis.
"False confessions can be categorized into three general types, as outlined by Saul M. Kassin in an article for Current Directions in Psychological Science. Voluntary confessions are those that are given freely, without police prompting. Compliant confessions are given in return for a reward, as mentioned above. Internalized false confessions are those in which the person genuinely believes that they have committed the crime, as a result of highly suggestive interrogation techniques."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confessions
Do you know where AK falls on the Gudjonsson suggestibility scale (GSS)? Does that not impact SA if the subject is highly susceptible?
Thanks, Peter, great work.
Why do water images symbolize sexual assault?
Good question, Anonymous. I will post a new one....thanks, Peter
Harry, there are several here; search the archives.
One was on television where readers did some analysis. A teenaged boy was videotaped giving a confession to a bullying interrogator who kept him isolated for many hours and deprived him of sleep.
the teen slipped into present tense language (common) in an attempt to please his bullying interrogator. The sgt was ignorant and ignored the teen's language.
Eventually, the boy's father (a minister) produced evidence that the boy was in P. Rico (I think) and had emergency dental care, which included an x-ray, on the date of the murder.
A false confession will frequently use present tense language when past tense is appropriate. I hope to construct an article on false confessions this Fall.
As the teen confessed, his language showed deception via analysis. That he was coerced was obvious from the video.
The interrogator should have been fired.
Peter
There are women interested in this case; however this case isn't publicized the same way Casey Anthony's was here in the States; and many people aren't aware that blogs such as this exist.
First I'd like to say I enjoyed reading all the analysis work you did on the Anthony case. While there were parts I disagreed with; and parts I didn't quite understand; I got a lot of information from them; so Thank You.
As for Ms. Knox; I (personally) believe she lied due to the drugs. I don't think pot was the only thing they did that night; unless Italian's have some kind of super-marijuana over there. People don't black out; or lose their memory from smoking. Sure some strains might be more potent than what was commonly available in the 70's here in the States; but that's pretty high end product; not what's commonly found on the streets.
I wanted to ask about some of the language you highlighted in her statements. During SA do you ever look at their (if possible/available) prior patterns of speech? Or their native location (ie: Kentucky vs New York etc) I ask this because some of the phrases your point out are; in my experience; fairly common ways of speaking ... for example I would almost always say:
"I went to the store w/ my husband"
rather than
"My husband & I went to the store"
- and actually I believe even more likely is that I'd name him specifically rather than use the label of "my husband". And that would be in any context of a conversation. So what is it about that arrangement of words that denotes distance? Or is it only when compared with the other factors in the SA does that become apparent? Meaning if the rest of the statement around that phrase were showing as truthful would that not have stood out?
Also when she says:
"We; Raffael & I"
you talk about that clarification as repetitive and displaying deception. Why? Does the fact that this statement was written by her have anything to do with any of this or would it be the same if she'd said it verbally? I'm asking about this; because again; this type of clarification of what the heck I'm talking about would be typical for me in a normal everyday conversation; and I'm curious as to how that would show a deception; as you perhaps can tell from this post; I tend to talk a lot; and often feel the need to clarify what I've just said; even if it feels repetitive; otherwise I worry I've confused the person I'm talking to.
Some people hear sheep screaming in the distance (that's a movie reference). My screaming sheep is my sister, saying over and over, "This is my fiancé," with nasally inflection. It was post valley girl, pre-uptalk.
"FI-yaaaaawn-say."
The way she said it was bad enough. But that she was introducing early high school boyfriends she'd dated a week, turned cute into flying shards of glass. On to chalkboards. In downtown Bangkok heat.
And then her big thing was worrying about being late and thus possibly pregnant. She'd walk around with a convincing look of worry on her face and a slightly hunched posture, and bragged about it constantly. What she was really saying was, "Hey, look at me! I'm so popular I'm having sex. With my FI-yaaaaawn-say."
When I read Amanda's "what I really meant to say, er, was . . ." and her romantic descriptions of showers and lovemaking (gag), I thought of my sister and how she would elaborate on the details of things designed solely to impress someone. Details and details about this and that. And of course details turned into elaborations, which turned into lies.
But when sh*t hit the fan, which it often times did, and my little sister was in a mess, she was all about the basics, facts, and no BS. When she wasn’t lying. That's when I knew to back her play. Or not.
Amanda commenting on sex and ears and such is simply a girl bragging before an audience trying to create an ego-fueled illusion. Seeing herself as a writer, she went crazy with the prose, thinking, "I can write my way out of this, and look good doing it." That’s when you see a girl working with words the way a blind man might juggle knives. She’s horrible. And that she can brag about whoring around at a time like that? Well, even if she is innocent, there’s some sort of psycho breakdown going on here.
Amanda’s conspirators, and a large portion of gullible America, either forgot or never knew how Amanda Knox first hit the American stage. I remember. It was Keith Morrison, or one of those creepy journo-judges, who did the obvious - "This chick ain't right. And her story is so bad it's embarrassing.” Cue ominous music.
But then something happened, and it happened high up. Someone, somewhere, decided they were going to make her innocent, and the American media circus was ordered to act accordingly. It's at its most disgusting right here in Seattle.
This DNA thing is the hot dog (meaning, “dog in heat”) thrown into an arena of ill-mannered strays, so smartly orchestrated that all the mutts, once starving, don't even notice the trough of steaming Gravy Train sitting out in the open. Everybody's just busy humping away.
"FI-yaaaaawn-say."
Many who’ve watched any of the CSI shows, or even an episode of SCRUBS, are bemoaning that the DNA thing will set her free. Everyone’s an expert now.
“International standards!” they cry, not understanding there are no international standards, just convenient end pieces cutout from the handbooks from police forces in Missouri, Louisiana, Wisconsin and, well, you get it. What they are convinced of as truth is actually political and academic posturing within an industry that, strangely, America may actually be behind in. But tell an American court that DNA evidence isn’t up to European standards and there’ll be hell to pay.
I’m just sayin’.
Peter, I’d also say that your work on this is brilliant, but it would seem inappropriate. My sister was still brilliant when she was drumming up images of popularity. (I love my sister. don’t get me wrong.) I’d say instead that your work is obvious, brilliantly obvious. Obviously brilliant.
Gnome sayin’?
Peter,
My first exposure to statement analysis happened when I was covering the Duke lacrosse case. Mark McClish. He stumbled around a bit in his analysis of David Evans’ use of the word “innocent,” by conflating legal and factual innocence. However, he got to the right place by the end of a three-part analysis (that is not currently available on the web, unfortunately). Based upon this, statement analysis to me is one tool in a toolbox. A tool may or may not be used skillfully; no one should use a screwdriver when a hammer is what is needed. It seems to me that you have made a start at answering the question, “Is Statement Analysis appropriate for false confessions and false accusations.” I would urge you to continue in this direction. I am not certain that it is, for reasons given in the next paragraph.
In my reading of Statement Analysis 101 I was particularly struck by the section on Lack of Conviction, “When analyzing a statement, investigators should note if the person feigns a loss of memory by repeatedly inserting ‘I don't remember’ or ‘I can't recall.’ What distinguishes real versus feigned memory loss? In an essay called “Internalized False Confessions” Saul Kassin wrote, “Indeed, Gudjonsson and MacKeith (1982) suggested that this type of confession was the product of ‘memory distrust syndrome,’ a form of source amnesia in which people develop a profound distrust of their memory, rendering them vulnerable to influence from external cues and suggestions.”
My passions are for good science and for justice to be done.
Post a Comment